On 2/23/20 8:10 PM, Dmitri McGuckin wrote: > Not that I care about the package itself but most of the criticisms laid > out are subjective. > > Nothing listed above is explicitly laid out in the guidelines for > user-packages: > https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Unofficial_user_repositories#Adding_your_repository_to_this_page
You're looking at the wrong page, the AUR is governed by https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_submission_guidelines#Rules_of_submission > Unless I'm missing something, /opt is intended for user programs. If you > have a better idea of where it should be, I'd love to hear it, but again, > not inherently a valid reason for removal. Incorrect, /opt is intended for things which are self-contained rather than following the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (i.e. they don't fit neatly into bin/ include/ lib/ and share/ directories). Shellscripts can and do get installed to /usr/bin all the time. But, this is not the issue that I mentioned. The issue that I mentioned is that the PKGBUILD will sudo install the file to /opt, and then makepkg will create an empty package. You can pacman -S uperm or pacman -R uperm and it doesn't make a difference, because the software consists of untracked files copied to /opt before the package was created. PKGBUILDs must install their files to "${pkgdir}/opt" or "${pkgdir}/usr" and NOT to /opt or /usr ... ... or else they are not even a package in the first place. See https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Creating_packages#package() -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
